>This criterion was a quick method to try and assess completeness.
>It was never considered "ideal", but I really think it is reasonable.
>Consider your language for example. You say that it has less than
>300 words. But what if you make an English/Your-language dictionary.
>In English, you would need to define 2000 words. If you had such
>a dictionary posted (which would be needed by English speakers),
>then your language would meet that particular constraint.
>So my original statement was not precise as I did not add the
>condition that due to possible conflicts in the idea of what
>constitutes a word in a particular language, it can be counted
>dependent on the english equivalents. This would make sense
>as the fluency count of 2000 was roughly based on English in the
>first place.
>Harold
In that way, it's a good method to rank conlangs.
I still believe that 2000 is quite a lot, but speaking about the most
developed conlangs it would be a good method.
As for the 'competition' I will choose Ithkuil and Ygyde.